About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

35 J. Res. Crime & Delinquency 3 (1998)

handle is hein.journals/jrcd35 and id is 1 raw text is: 



                   AN APPLICATION OF STAFFORD
   AND WARR'S RECONCEPTUALIZATION OF
 DETERRENCE TO DRINKING AND DRIVING

                                              ALEX PIQUERO
                                 RAYMOND PATERNOSTER



In a recent restatement of the deterrence doctrine, Stafford and Warr (1993) argued
that deterrence is felt through a mixture of personal and vicarious experiences with
punishment and the avoidance of punishment. An implication of the premise that
persons may be affected by both what they directly experience and what they only
indirectly experience through others is that they may be influenced by both general
and specific deterrence mechanisms. In an empirical test of this reconceptualization,
the authors found that persons' expressed intentions to drink and drive are affected
by (1) personal and vicarious experiences and (2) punishment and punishment
avoidance. Strong deterrent effects were found for the perceived certainty of punish-
ment that is directed at one's self The authors also found that moral beliefs that
prohibit drunk driving are an effective source of inhibition. In addition, the social
control of drunk driving seems to operate equally wellfor men and women.


   Traditionally, deterrence has been conceptualized as involving two dis-
tinct types of processes: specific deterrence and general deterrence. Specific
deterrence operates when an individual who has committed a crime and has
been sanctioned refrains from committing additional criminal acts for fear of
another punishment.  General deterrence occurs when a would-be  offender
refrains from committing  a crime because another has been punished  for
offending. In the past, researchers (Andenaes 1968, 1974; Gibbs 1975; Meier
and Johnson  1977; Nagin  1978) have been adamant in distinguishing these
two  types of deterrence with reference to different populations: Specific
deterrence affects the punished offender, whereas general deterrence affects
the unpunished  would-be offender who  somehow   witnesses or vicariously
experiences punishment.

   We would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their excellent comments. Address
all correspondence to Alex Piquero, Temple University, Department of Criminal Justice, Glad-
felterHall (5th floor), Philadelphia, PA 19122; phone (215) 204-1354, fax (215) 204-3872, e-mail
apiquero@nimbus.ocis.temple.edu.
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CRIME AND DELINQUENCY, Vol. 35 No. 1, February 1998 3-39
@ 1998 Sage Publications, Inc.
                                                                       3


from the SAGE Social Science Collections. All Rights Reserved.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 3,000 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most